Smiths or Rolex - Which One Was the First Watch on Mt. Everest?

[JackW]

This is the most interesting thread I've read in a long time. Thank you to Ollie and M4tt (and Broussard!) in particular for their research and for taking the time to post their findings.

Sure, but the point is that every Rolex of the period had the precise year and quarter stamped on it. That Rolex changed the designation of the case is largely irrelevant. It’s the same 35.5mm case housing the same movement but with minor dial variations. In fact, the 6150 is meant to be the first explorer, made to celebrate the ascent, so that’s another bit of Rolex BS uncovered as clearly the 6150 existed in Q1’53.

For Stahl’s conjecture, what would matter is if there was a redacted date. There isn’t. Now, it is possible it’s a Franken faked by Gregory (from whom ultimately the provenance comes) but if we are accepting that level of scepticism then pretty well anything goes.

Just thinking out loud: could it be possible that Rolex prepared new, engraved case backs after the ascent turned out to have been successful, so they could swap the unmarked original case backs at the earliest opportunity? That would explain the 'wrong' date and model number on what could in fact be the '52 issue watch.

[Rev-O]

Re an Explorer ref case dated before they were issued: that’s easy to explain if Rolex were using cases dated 3 or 6 months before the s/n or first appearance of a particular reference. So I.53 seems ok to me. (Even, say, I.52 would be ok; more problematic but not impossible.)

As for the engravings being post-ascent: yes, that’s certainly possible. How likely it is I don’t know but it’s easy enough to image why Rolex would do that. A simple enough job, too. If that is what happened then it could be either done on the original backs or on replacement ones.

All we can say with any certainty is that Hillary was wearing a Smiths when he summitted. The rest (the claims by, for and about Rolex) is more or less conjecture.

[M4tt]

This is the most interesting thread I've read in a long time. Thank you to Ollie and M4tt (and Broussard!) in particular for their research and for taking the time to post their findings.

Just thinking out loud: could it be possible that Rolex prepared new, engraved case backs after the ascent turned out to have been successful, so they could swap the unmarked original case backs at the earliest opportunity? That would explain the 'wrong' date and model number on what could in fact be the '52 issue watch.

Thanks very much. It's nice to argue it through in such a constructive environment. I'd love to see the letter from Smiths, if Broussard or anyone with the capacity, is prepared to dig it out.

It's certainly possible that Rolex could have collected in all the watches and changed the case backs, but there are is an infinite set of things that are possible. The question is, is it likely and, more to the point, is it more likely than much simpler options that fit the known facts?

The reality is that the claim that Rolex gave out thirteen watches then took six back is merely a conjecture made by Stahl. The conjecture is meant to explain the fact that there are two invoices from Rolex - invoice one is for thirteen watches that were given to the expedition members in '53 and another invoice, some time later, for a further seven watches.

My hypothesis is based on the fact that first invoice was issued in response to a request from the Royal Geographical Society (RGS) for paperwork. That much is indisputable. This invoice is also explicit that the watches are free gifts. No strings are attached.

So, first, anyone claiming the watches were experimental models meant to be returned for testing is simply wrong - they were not prototypes and they were explicitly invoiced as gifts. Quite a few of them remained ion the ownership of the members of the expedition who wore them.

Another fact is that, having studied the entire haul of documents held by the RGS on the '51 and '52 expeditions I can confirm that there are no Rolex invoices in the collections for those expeditions. I don't see anything that could be them in contemporary photographs. In fact, Shipton is clearly wearing his 1920's cushion Oyster and Hillary a watch that, whatever it is, is far too small and the wrong shape to be a 35mm Rolex Oyster. The only evidence I have ever seen is Hillary's solicited testimonial, but this is problematic for at least two separate reasons.

Another fact is that Bosecks in Calcutta gave away a number of Rolex. We know that they retained Hillary and Hunt and gave them watches. We know that they also gave a watch to Norgay but it is unclear who else got watches.

Personally I find it much easier to believe that the first invoice is exactly what it purports to be: an invoice for the watches given to the '53 expedition. The second invoice could be anything, replacing failed or lost watches, a bung to the RGS, a reserve, but what it isn't is an invoice for the return of watches. No such invoice exists in the RGS collection.

However, we know that Rolex gave some members of the expedition additional watches and it seems obvious that these would also generate an invoice. Thus, you'd expect a second invoice and that's what you find in the documents held at the RGS.

That seems the simplest explanation and the one that fits the available facts.
Stahl's conjecture is overcomplicated, relies on one of his many secret sources, doesn't fit the available facts and doesn't fit in with what we know about of Hunt, who himself wore two watches, as did his deputy and two other members of the expedition. The reason Hunt was chosen was because he was experienced at using a hammer to crack a nut. Shipton would have given extra stuff back. Hunt would, and did, just hand it out as much for the morale value as redundancy.

Returning to Rolex giving stuff out - this was a tradition started by Wilsdorf - he was one of the first people to really see the value of product placement. I also believe, having researched the early corporate structure of Rolex, that he was also a genuinely good guy who got excited about excellence in many fields.

He was also an Anglophile who was a fluent English speaker, had an English wife, and a member of the Anglican communion, worshipping here:

http://holytrinitygeneva.org/

If only there were someone with the connections to research that more fully... who'd gone into business with his English Brother in law and actually launched the Rolex brand in London, before changing Wilsdorf and Davies to 'The Rolex Watch Company', while still in London, before moving the business to Switzerland as protectionism began to bite and made his original business model: building watches from cases and movements made by others, uneconomic in England.

I think he'd have been entirely as motivated to see the British succeed as he would the Swiss.

[Carlton-Browne]

I think this question is for Matt. As part of your extensive Everest-themed collection, do you have one of these Smiths alarm clocks and what more can you tell us about it?

[M4tt]

I think this question is for Matt. As part of your extensive Everest-themed collection, do you have one of these Smiths alarm clocks and what more can you tell us about it?

Sadly, that's not Everest, that the Antarctic. It's Fuchs and Hillary in '54. He's got an Explorer by then and any Smiths is centre second!

However, I'd already posted pictures of the Everest one - it's both heavy and heavily chromed, impressively radioactive and has a really nice seven jewel movement and a lovely rattly ring chime. It's really just a small high quality standard alarm:







There's a stock number on mine:



While I'm at it, who has a shiny subdial here:

[JackW]

The question is, is it likely and, more to the point, is it more likely than much simpler options that fit the known facts?

The reality is that the claim that Rolex gave out thirteen watches then took six back is merely a conjecture made by Stahl.

I must have missed that in the earlier posts - I was only trying to connect the dots, but it turns out I was working with the wrong information. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Broussard]

Barrett letter, as requested.

As always, image courtesy of the AHS and BHI.

[julian2002]

Having followed this thread, and found it mighty interesting too, i now find myself oddly grumpy whenever the accepted wisdom of 'Rolex was the first up Everest' is spotted. Most recently I was looking for a book to read on kindle unlimited and spotted a book telling the tales of a number of 'landmark watches' after seeing 'Everest and Rolex' in the same sentence I passed on the book but I may go back and see just what the accepted 'history' is.

[M4tt]

Barrett letter, as requested.

As always, image courtesy of the AHS and BHI.

Thanks very much indeed Broussard. There's something both wonderful and a bit deflating when, after far too much time spent on research and, in this case, literally days spent staring at grainy photographs through a loupe or trying to find the best algorithms to accurately tidy up equally grainy scans or cuttings from films, someone provides not just the smoke, but the gun and a letter of explanation.

Mind you, never satisfied, I'd love to see what Mr Faller had to say in his letter... There is an irony here. As I pointed out earlier, both the brand Rolex and the Rolex Watch Company were founded in London and then moved, while Smiths, that doyen of Britishness had grown under the watchful eye of someone about as British as Yodelling. I had a bit of a go at this a while back elsewhere:

http://www.intlwatchleague.com/showt...eger-leCoultre

I just enjoy research.

[Broussard]

Faller noted from the July '53 edition of the Horological Journal, "that Smiths claim that every member of the British Mount Everest Expedition was equipped with one of their watches. We also are aware that the Rolex Watch Co. claim that Colonel Hunt, Mr. Hillary and Sherpa Tensing wore Rolex Perpetual Oysters. Are we to presume that at least three members of the expedition wore one watch on each wrist?"

This was in August '53, presumably before many of the photographs that we've all seen had surfaced.

CE Faller was the Director of Stephen Faller, Ltd., Williamsgate Street, Galway.

[Broussard]

There's also a rather strange letter from another "E Hillary" of Newbury (no relation, one assumes). He claims to have spoken to Sir Edmund Hillary in October 1953:

"He assured me that he wore one watch only, his Smiths, during the last stages of the climb but, at the same time, he spoke very highly of the Rolex, and the fact that it remained behind in the comparative safety of the Base Camp, was no reflection on the watch, but simply a common-sense precaution to keep one in reserve, and to avoid any possible chance of getting both smashed at the same time. The precaution was against accidental damage, and there seems to have been no fear that any of the watches would fail. As this confidence was fully justified, both makers are to be congratulated. Tensing carried a single watch, his own, of unrecorded make, but he did not do any of the timekeeping, or calculations for consumption of oxygen—called by the Sherpas " English Air.""

Horological Journal, November 1953 (courtesy of the AHS and BHI).

[M4tt]

Faller noted from the July '53 edition of the Horological Journal, "that Smiths claim that every member of the British Mount Everest Expedition was equipped with one of their watches. We also are aware that the Rolex Watch Co. claim that Colonel Hunt, Mr. Hillary and Sherpa Tensing wore Rolex Perpetual Oysters. Are we to presume that at least three members of the expedition wore one watch on each wrist?"

This was in August '53, presumably before many of the photographs that we've all seen had surfaced.

CE Faller was the Director of Stephen Faller, Ltd., Williamsgate Street, Galway.

That's brilliant, thank you!

Actually, It's a demonstrable fact that at least three did! two, Hunt and Wylie had one on both wrists at various times, and one (I forget) wore the Smiths on their belt and Rolex on their wrist. I've never seen a photo of Hillary with two watches on and all the ones in which identification is possible look like Smiths to me. Here's Wylie (again) Personally I think that the Rolex and Smiths are dead easy to differentiate and I'm astonished that no one else seems to agree:





As for surfacing photos, there are about three thousand black and white pictures in the RGS collection and about a tenth of them have been digitised. I've been through about half with a loupe and made fairly scruffy notes. They don't have any watches from '53, but they do have a couple from '24.

[Mr Curta]

It would be so much easier to identify the timepieces if they had all worn massive ones like those.

[M4tt]

It would be so much easier to identify the timepieces if they had all worn massive ones like those.

That's modern fashions for you. It's all about showing off!

[Rev-O]

Credit to Stahl, he's done very good work reaching the Rolexes that went to Everest. It's just a shame he can barely bring himself to admit that Smiths watches were there too.

(I have no problem acknowledging the fact that Rolex gave watches to the Hunt expedition by calling them "Bollex" -- the equivalent of "Schmutz" -- or "wannabes", both terms Stahl uses for Smiths.)

Hey ho.

Here's some more of his excellent work: Wylie's "H2" watch. You can see that the "H2" seems to much more lightly engraved and has worn away to be almost invisible to without a loupe:



http://rolexpassionreport.com/25605/...edition-rolex/

Whether the "[team member's name] + Everest 1953" was done at the same time or added later I couldn't say but the depth of engraving looks shallower. However that may just be that the "Ovettone" / "Bubbleback" case is convex and there's more wear to the centre than to the edges? I'd say it was different hand myself.

As for Hillary and Fuchs in the Antarctic: again, I think Smiths supplied the expedition. (I'll dig out a source later.)

I've heard that the headline in the The Times was “Hillary Fuchs off to the Pole” -- pretty risky for 1955!

And when Fuchs went back to the South Pole a few years later it was "Dr Fuchs off to the pole again"

Thanks to Matt and Broussard for all their hard work on this thread and to those who have thanked me and them and enjoyed reading it.

[Mr Curta]

I've heard that the headline in the The Times was “Hillary Fuchs off to the Pole” -- pretty risky for 1955!
And when Fuchs went back to the South Pole a few years later it was "Dr Fuchs off to the pole again"

https://www.theguardian.com/theguard...-style-cliches

[Rev-O]

https://www.theguardian.com/theguard...-style-cliches

Thanks Matt!

"Lest you think that I'm just trying to get an easy laugh out of a mildly amusing name, let me assure you: you are quite right."

Well, quite. Britain has a long and noble tradition of bawdy humour, innuendo and puerile jokes about sex.

Here's a Donald MGill postcard from, I think, the 1930s. Took me a while to get it.

[M4tt]

Thanks Matt!

"Lest you think that I'm just trying to get an easy laugh out of a mildly amusing name, let me assure you: you are quite right."

Well, quite. Britain has a long and noble tradition of bawdy humour, innuendo and puerile jokes about sex.

Here's a Donald MGill postcard from, I think, the 1930s. Took me a while to get it.

Well, if you must have a double entendre, I can give you one.

[RAJEN]

On a related note: https://i.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news...ng-off-everest
Makes interesting reading.
It seems there was an orchestrated effort to make it all- British. And that is where Smiths come in.
If Hilary was first on summit, it was by design. If Hilary wore/carried/ took or claims he took/carried/wore a Smiths-it is all a part of a pattern. If Hilary was first and Smiths was first- fair play to them. Winners get to write history.
The fact is either men or watches could have been first on summit.
To pretend that Rolex was after glory and Smiths happened to be first on summit by chance or anything else is foolish.
Barrett letter is particularly amusing.
Another interesting link:
https://www.climbing.com/news/everests-other-guy/

At the end of the day, all claims are just claims. Hillary claiming when Tenzing was no longer there that he was first,Tenzing claiming he was first or Hillary claiming he 'carried' a Smiths. There is little documentary evidence other than dodgy pictures and case backs and serial numbers and convinient interpretations of the scant evidence. Understandably, all parties had a vested interest in their own interpretation or representation of 'truth'.
That includes Hillary,Tensing,Rolex,Smiths,India and the British.
It is just tiring to hear the constant refrain that what Rolex claims is propaganda and what Smiths and Hillary claim is the truth as pure as driven snow. Pardon the pun.
Hillary was also a complicated and a fiercely ambitious man.

[JackW]

The fact is either men or watches could have been first on summit.

Well, except of course for the fact that photographic evidence, Hillary's testimony, physical evidence and written claims by both companies' presidents indicate that it was a Smiths watch.

I honestly don't care one way or the other, but that's quite clear to me. I'm not sure why anyone would want to keep clouding the discussion to be honest.

[RAJEN]

Well, except of course for the fact that photographic evidence, Hillary's testimony, physical evidence and written claims by both companies' presidents indicate that it was a Smiths watch.

I honestly don't care one way or the other, but that's quite clear to me. I'm not sure why anyone would want to keep clouding the discussion to be honest.

Sorry, I didn't know there was a picture of Hillary standing alone on the summit with a Smiths on his wrist with Tensing few steps behind without a Rolex on his wrist.

[M4tt]

On a related note: https://i.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news...ng-off-everest
Makes interesting reading.
It seems there was an orchestrated effort to make it all- British. And that is where Smiths come in.
If Hilary was first on summit, it was by design. If Hilary wore/carried/ took or claims he took/carried/wore a Smiths-it is all a part of a pattern. If Hilary was first and Smiths was first- fair play to them. Winners get to write history.
The fact is either men or watches could have been first on summit.
To pretend that Rolex was after glory and Smiths happened to be first on summit by chance or anything else is foolish.
Barrett letter is particularly amusing.
Another interesting link:
https://www.climbing.com/news/everests-other-guy/

At the end of the day, all claims are just claims. Hillary claiming when Tenzing was no longer there that he was first,Tenzing claiming he was first or Hillary claiming he 'carried' a Smiths. There is little documentary evidence other than dodgy pictures and case backs and serial numbers and convinient interpretations of the scant evidence. Understandably, all parties had a vested interest in their own interpretation or representation of 'truth'.
That includes Hillary,Tensing,Rolex,Smiths,India and the British.
It is just tiring to hear the constant refrain that what Rolex claims is propaganda and what Smiths and Hillary claim is the truth as pure as driven snow. Pardon the pun.
Hillary was also a complicated and a fiercely ambitious man.

I am genuinely astonished that anyone could read the preceding thread and then write this. All claims may just be claims, but claims supported by clear evidence and sound argument are something different.

If you want to rebut claims like that you need to deploy evidence and argument not innuendo, adhominem and disphemism. There’s been enough of that already.

[RAJEN]

https://erenow.net/biographies/after-everest/19.php

Sordid saga of Hillary's watches.
Too bad he didn't buy a few Smiths to commemorate all those important anniversaries:-)

[JackW]

Sorry, I didn't know there was a picture of Hillary standing alone on the summit with a Smiths on his wrist with Tensing few steps behind without a Rolex on his wrist.

As far as I know, there isn't. I'm not sure what you're trying to say though? Maybe Tensing was wearing his Rolex - maybe Hillary had his Rolex on him as well. It's just that there's no convincing case to be made for that. The beauty of this thread, in my opinion, is that it proves quite conclusively, for the first time, that there was a Smiths watch. As a watch enthousiast, how can you not be thrilled about that? I for one would be delighted if there was similarly conclusive evidence that there was a Rolex too.

[JackW]

https://erenow.net/biographies/after-everest/19.php

Sordid saga of Hillary's watches.
Too bad he didn't buy a few Smiths to commemorate all those important anniversaries:-)

But that's beside the point, isn't it? It proves that Hillary liked Rolex and bought quite a few of them, which has nothing to do with the subject of this thread. In fact, the story you link to says:

"The question of which timepiece was the first watch to get to the top of Mt Everest is the ‘Did Mallory get there first?’ of chronometry. As with that question, there is really no doubt. The watch Ed actually wore on the climb was one produced by the English watchmakers, Smiths."

EDIT: apologies to all the forum members who made such valuable contributions to this thread for muddying it. I'll stop now.

[M4tt]

https://erenow.net/biographies/after-everest/19.php

Sordid saga of Hillary's watches.
Too bad he didn't buy a few Smiths to commemorate all those important anniversaries:-)

Why would he when he was being given lots of Rolex by his employers: Rolex. I note the article implies that the solicited testimonial about Cho Oyu is implied to be about Everest and the documented fact is that he wore Smiths A454, not Rolex in The Antarctic. Incidentally, Smiths industries are still going strong, even if the watch and clock division closed.

[M4tt]

But that's beside the point, isn't it? It proves that Hillary liked Rolex and bought quite a few of them, which has nothing to do with the subject of this thread. In fact, the story you link to says:

"The question of which timepiece was the first watch to get to the top of Mt Everest is the ‘Did Mallory get there first?’ of chronometry. As with that question, there is really no doubt. The watch Ed actually wore on the climb was one produced by the English watchmakers, Smiths."

EDIT: apologies to all the forum members who made such valuable contributions to this thread for muddying it. I'll stop now.

Just for the record, I think, as did Hillary, that Mallory made it to the summit. However, as Hillary noted, it’s the getting down again...

So it’s a Borgel...

[RAJEN]

As far as I know, there isn't. I'm not sure what you're trying to say though? Maybe Tensing was wearing his Rolex - maybe Hillary had his Rolex on him as well. It's just that there's no convincing case to be made for that. The beauty of this thread, in my opinion, is that it proves quite conclusively, for the first time, that there was a Smiths watch. As a watch enthousiast, how can you not be thrilled about that? I for one would be delighted if there was similarly conclusive evidence that there was a Rolex too.

I actually couldn't care less either way. What I do care about a bit is ad nauseum refrain about what some people refer to as Rolex marketing as false propaganda/bollocks/BS etc. Some people think that endless flogging or snide remarks about Rolex makes them look smarter or insightful or experts.To me it screams a loser mentality to be so worked up about the success of a watch brand. Rolex or Smiths being first on summit doesn't make them better watches. I am not a history buff. Being the first person on Everest was not a personal victory of Hillary or Tensing.
It was the Hunt expedition's victory just as it was not Neil Armstrong's victory when he took that first step but it was Apollo mission's victory.

[RAJEN]

Just for the record, I think, as did Hillary, that Mallory made it to the summit. However, as Hillary noted, it’s the getting down again...

So it’s a Borgel...

Well, some have made a case of how Mallory could not have made it.
So it could still be a Smiths.

[RAJEN]

EDIT: apologies to all the forum members who made such valuable contributions to this thread for muddying it. I'll stop now.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

It was muddied when the word 'bollocks' was used at the very beginning which in my opinion taints the whole thread.

[JackW]

I actually couldn't care less either way. What I do care about a bit is ad nauseum refrain about what some people refer to as Rolex marketing as false propaganda/bollocks/BS etc. Some people think that endless flogging or snide remarks about Rolex makes them look smarter or insightful or experts.To me it screams a loser mentality to be so worked up about the success of a watch brand. Rolex or Smiths being first on summit doesn't make them better watches. I am not a history buff. Being the first person on Everest was not a personal victory of Hillary or Tensing.
It was the Hunt expedition's victory just as it was not Neil Armstrong's victory when he took that first step but it was Apollo mission's victory.

I completely agree: flogging Rolex for being such a successful brand, and feeling smug about another brand 'beating' Rolex to whatever makes anybody look bad. I think this thread is refreshingly free of that attitude, which is why I don't really understand what you are railing against.

Where we differ is that I do like the 'who wore what and when' game of historical events - I guess that makes me a bit of a history buff then. I just think it's great that all this research turns up these amazing primary sources and a wealth of knowledge which is shared on the forum. It would be disappointing to turn a good thing like that into another internet argument, that's all.

[RAJEN]

Incidentally, Smiths industries are still going strong, even if the watch and clock division closed.

Watches on Everest were incidental. The other equipment had far greater role to play.

[RAJEN]

I completely agree: flogging Rolex for being such a successful brand, and feeling smug about another brand 'beating' Rolex to whatever makes anybody look bad. I think this thread is refreshingly free of that attitude, which is why I don't really understand what you are railing against.

Where we differ is that I do like the 'who wore what and when' game of historical events - I guess that makes me a bit of a history buff then. I just think it's great that all this research turns up these amazing primary sources and a wealth of knowledge which is shared on the forum. It would be disappointing to turn a good thing like that into another internet argument, that's all.

I do not for a moment disagree. The amount of information shared here is enormous and Rev-O,Matt and Broussard deserve kudos for their time and efforts. My problem is what I have already talked about.
No one ( not many ) would glance at this thread if it weren't an 'argument'. A spirited debate with some baits carefully laid out here and there makes it more readable:-) Plus, atleast someone had to stop Rev-O from making this a Smiths passion report (self-admittedly) ��

[M4tt]

Watches on Everest were incidental. The other equipment had far greater role to play.

I’m afraid not. The watches were integral. Pugh had calculated optimum oxygen rates, work rates, hydration schemes, breaks and so on and all required precise timing. Smiths provided watches as a central part of a comprehensive instrument and metering package. Pugh was the first sports scientist and his insights showed timing was important when human judgement is compromised. Just as with diving. As I said before, Rolex were merely doing product placement. Smiths were providing a total package and, to be clear, their key business was instruments.

[Rev-O]

At the end of the day, all claims are just claims. Hillary claiming when Tenzing was no longer there that he was first,Tenzing claiming he was first or Hillary claiming he 'carried' a Smiths. There is little documentary evidence other than dodgy pictures and case backs and serial numbers and convinient interpretations of the scant evidence. Understandably, all parties had a vested interest in their own interpretation or representation of 'truth'.
That includes Hillary,Tensing,Rolex,Smiths,India and the British.
It is just tiring to hear the constant refrain that what Rolex claims is propaganda and what Smiths and Hillary claim is the truth as pure as driven snow. Pardon the pun.
Hillary was also a complicated and a fiercely ambitious man.

I think (but I don't have a copy to hand) that Tenzing said in his autobiography* that Hillary was first.

*"Tiger of the Snows" also, I think, published under the title "Man of Everest" -- just to add to the confusion. Seems nothing is simple when it comes to the first successful ascent of Everest.

I do not for a moment disagree. The amount of information shared here is enormous and Rev-O,Matt and Broussard deserve kudos for their time and efforts. My problem is what I have already talked about.
No one ( not many ) would glance at this thread if it weren't an 'argument'. A spirited debate with some baits carefully laid out here and there makes it more readable:-) Plus, atleast someone had to stop Rev-O from making this a Smiths passion report (self-admittedly) 

I'm wearing a Rolex as I type this. I don't hate the brand at all. If you asked me to research and write a massive multi-part blog on the history of the watches on the 1953 Everest Expedition I would mention both Rolex and Smiths. Yet Stahl can barely bring himself to say the word "Smiths".

As for this "some people refer to as Rolex marketing as false propaganda/bollocks/BS etc." Yes, because it is.

"UK Rolex booklet from October 2007"



Here are the inside pages :



Source: https://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.p...r-1-quot/page3

Rolex simply did not have a watch bearing the name (or even called) "Explorer" until later in 1953 -- after the ascent.

So, yes, damn right "some people refer to as Rolex marketing as false propaganda/bollocks/BS etc."

[RAJEN]

He had (reportedly) also said after returning from Everest that he didn't mind being the second person to reach the summit and Hillary the third. As well him confiding to his sons that he was the first.
Sadly, he passed away first. So, he didn't have the luxury to say it in Hillary's absence.

[Rev-O]

Sniff, sniff I smell money.

The reason I can be objective is that I'm not the one selling "heritated" (no, really) Rolexes in a numbered limited edition of only 88!

http://rolexpassionreport.com/1957/h...ed-the-summit/

Here http://rolexpassionreport.com/5722/t...nzing-edition/ is the "Hillary Tenzing Edition Rolex Explorer set, “Heritated” not customized! HTE in 36mm, 39, mm and 42mm…"

And here http://rolexpassionreport.com/4788/t...ition-article/ is the "limited Hillary Tenzing Edition wooden Expedition Crate including 3 “Heritated” Rolex Explorer I in 36 mm & 39mm red Explorer & the biggest, 42 mm Explorer II with MK I bezel"

So, yes, I can well see why Stahl won't acknowledge Smiths. Sniff, sniff I smell the folding stuff.

Happy to give him the last word (again) "it will always remain a mystery if Rolex was literally on the summit."

I agree with that.

[Rev-O]

This thread is at nearly 15,000 views.

Wow.

Not bad for such a specific topic.

[SimonK]

It seems there was an orchestrated effort to make it all- British. And that is where Smiths come in.

Watches on Everest were incidental. The other equipment had far greater role to play.

There is a contradiction in these two assertions given that the list of equipment in appendix IX of Hunt's 'Ascent of Everest' shows many non-British companies - Société D.E.O.M., Kodak, Pautry & Cie, Time-Life Magazines, Wico-Zelt, Compagnie Générale du Lait, Knorr-Suisse, etc.

By the way, under the list of 'Donations from Individuals' there is only one group mentioned - 'Staff, Savoy Hotel Blackpool.' I wonder why the staff - presumably cooks, waiters, housemaids, etc - were moved to offer financial support to the expedition?

[bobbee]

He had (reportedly) also said after returning from Everest that he didn't mind being the second person to reach the summit and Hillary the third. As well him confiding to his sons that he was the first.
Sadly, he passed away first. So, he didn't have the luxury to say it in Hillary's absence.

You appear to be not taking the BHI letters, advertising and Hillary autobiography into consideration.

Rolex did not make it.

[Tinker]

https://www.smithswatches.com/collec...iths-everest-1

[Rev-O]

Thinking about the markings on the back of the Everest Rolexes: I wonder if they were originally just engraved "H1", "H2" and so on, "H" for the Hunt Expedition. My guess would be then that the "[Team Member's Name] Everest 1953" was added afterwards, either when Rolex turned the loan into a gift or simply as a presentation engraving. (Perhaps they went back to Rolex to see how they'd fared before being returned to the team members?)

Having studied lots of military markings (some fake, some real, some anomalous or unusual) I'd say that the "Hx" was not done at the same time / in the same hand or style / with the same tool as the more . . . fulsome inscription.


They are still lovely watches and very important pieces; this does not detract from their authenticity.

[M4tt]

He had (reportedly) also said after returning from Everest that he didn't mind being the second person to reach the summit and Hillary the third. As well him confiding to his sons that he was the first.
Sadly, he passed away first. So, he didn't have the luxury to say it in Hillary's absence.

Face it, he's also on record (at least according to Stahl) as having confided in his sons that Princess Elizabeth asked Lambert to ask him to join the expedition...

Either way, it doesn't really matter. The Rolex that he is traditionally said to have worn was the gold Datejust given to him after the Lambert Expedition.
That's the only Rolex connected to him prior to the climb. Fortunately there are colour photographs and, from leaving Kathmandu to the return, there's only one watch on his wrist - it ain't gold and it doesn't look like a Rolex.

But at the points at which discrimination is possible, it does look like a Smiths A409...

Let's do this again:

Here's what the two Rolex and Smiths look like from the two wrists of Charles Wylie:



I find it hard to believe that anyone can look at this picture and not be able to clearly see which is which. And if that is true then I find it equally hard to see why they can't see which one of those two this is:



Especially when you can compare it to Hillary's from almost the same angle:



There's two questions here:

One, is it a Rolex - compare it with the Rolex on Wylie's wrist.

Two, is it a Smiths - compare it with the Smiths on Wylie's other wrist.

Now, I can understand someone who asserts that there may well have been other watches, Pugh, for example, wore an Omega and even other watches in a Dennison case, that makes sense. But I can't see how anyone can look at the shape of the watch on Tenzing's wrist and see a Rolex of any sort.

As far as I can see, the Smiths on Hillary's wrist is a done deal. Tenzing, on the other hand, clearly wasn't wearing a Rolex, only had one Rolex, had precious little chance of acquiring another one and has never shown anyone a steel one one that he claimed to have worn one on Everest. ( I could go into this in painful detail...)

In short...

[Rev-O]

In short...

it was Smiffs wot dun it.

An 'umble English timepiece from a company that never made a profit on their watches (they were subsidised by the government as it was felt to be a matter of national security that we had on-shore ebauche manufacturing capabilities).

Can we put this thread to bed now?

Thanks all -- especially to Matt and Broussard -- it's been fun. And I think this is now the definitive resource on this matter. It's a shame that "Stainless Stahl" didn't want to participate but there you go. He's done excellent work, too, in his own way (and with his own agenda and interests) but this, for me, really settles it unless and until new facts emerge.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GQ6Ip4shY4

[RAJEN]

Now this is a real watch:

[animalone]

Now this is a real watch:

Is it though ???
Is there any pictures of inside the watch to confirm it has a movement? it could just be a case with a dial and hands (like the Basel collection watches that tour the retailers every year)

[Rev-O]

Now this is a real watch:

All the watches on this thread are "real", but only one was the first to the summit.

And we've dealt with this watch. It's the one in the Beyer museum.

RAJEN: PLEASE READ THE THREAD BEFORE COMMENTING OTHERWISE YOU MAKE YOURSELF LOOK STUPID AND WASTE EVERYONE'S TIME

Also, you're starting to look like a troll. Possibly a Rolex fanboy troll but a troll noneltheless.

Please stop posting if you've nothing new, positive or at least interesting to say. It's like dropping litter or putting sand in a gearbox.

[M4tt]

Now this is a real watch:

I admire your fine taste. I too have a soft spot for small 1950s watches and the Rolex/Aegler 765 movements Rolex fitted are pretty good even if I prefer in house, rather than an aged design historically shared with Gruen and many other marques, but it serves, especially when paired with the fine Rolex winding system. However, I’d be delighted if you could explain quite what its connection with Everest is. I’ve heard several contradictory tales, but nothing remotely convincing.

Yes, I’m just being annoying, but why are you trying to trash a thread you yourself think is good? You’ve insulted Rev, you’ve sneered and now you are just plain trying to annoy. Look, I like Rolex watches as much as the next man and I like their charitable approach still further, however, their ad department really do try to play fast and loose with history and I for one find that annoying. However, in this case, it’s just a matter of what is most likely to be true on the basis of the best evidence available. If Charles and Tom had been first on top, I’d be celebrating that, and Rolex’s success. However, as I said, I think it was Mallory. I think there’s a solid case he was much closer to the summit when last seen, he was the finest climber of his generation and both he and his partner were rowing blues who still rowed, meaning they had engaged in one of the few exercises that runs you steadily on the verge of acidosis and thus is the best acclimatising tool beyond being at height. They had about three hours from when they were last seen before the pressure drop sealed their fates as the oxygen ran out. So Borgel, you know, the watches whose 1903 patent Rolex copied the oyster case from. And makers of the worlds waterproof watch in 1895...

[RAJEN]

Re: However, in this case, it’s just a matter of what is most likely to be true on the basis of the best evidence available.

Ok, now that is a different tack as opposed to the open and shut case or a smoking gun approach elsewhere on the thread. As I see it, the available/presented evidence makes it likely that Hillary had a Smiths on his persona when he reached the summit, possibly the only watch he carried to the summit.
I am not all convinced if he was the first person on top and whether we can tell with any degree of certainty what Tensing was wearing. The evidence I am considering is the grainy pictures with mostly off angle view of watches, the letters, the claims, the ads, the 'admission' etc. The only thing I am discounting are the vehement assertions made on what I consider is thin circumstantial evidence for the claim that there was no Rolex between the pair on the summit.
BTW, I am sure you know where the picture is from.

[M4tt]

However, in this case, it’s just a matter of what is most likely to be true on the basis of the best evidence available.

Ok, now that is a different tack as opposed to the open and shut case or a smoking gun approach elsewhere on the thread.

No it isn't. It's simple academic caution. At this point, I'd say that there is a combination of evidence to support the theory (as in theory of evolution) that while Rolex and Smiths were worn ubiquitously during the expedition, neither Hillary or Tenzing wore anything but Smiths beyond camp four. Both are wearing watches on their wrists as they prepared to leave camp four and on their return. There is zero credible evidence that either watch is a Rolex and a profusion of evidence, photographic, biographic, circumstantial and documentary that neither of those watches were Rolex and that one, and almost certainly both were Smiths A409 watches. Personally I don't think this was a plan. They needed high quality timekeeping, both watches offered that. The team for the first assault both wore Rolex, the team for the second both wore Smiths. The evidence that Hillary had a Rolex on Everest, or even at all, prior to the Bosecks one is scant. there is no credible evidence that Tenzing had, or used a steel one prior to Bosecks' gift.

As I see it, the available/presented evidence makes it likely that Hillary had a Smiths on his persona when he reached the summit, possibly the only watch he carried to the summit.

I'm sure. The watch he wore has an immaculate provenance, it's in the Science Museum London. Hillary says it's the one, he's never said there was another, despite being employed by Rolex and it's clear what it is in a number of pictures. Smiths asserted and Rolex conceded that he was wearing a Smiths and not wearing or carrying a Rolex on the summit. I could go on, but speaking with my epistemology hat on this is the sort of nested evidence that puts the claim beyond dispute. The fact that you think it doesn't is no evidence to the contrary.

I am not all convinced if he was the first person on top

Again, that's nice, but near the ends of their lives, they both said he was. I agree that's not conclusive, but it's pretty convincing. Either way, there’s sod all evidence that Tenzing wore a Rolex. The only reason people started to think he did was because he had a gold Datejust and it was claimed or inferred that he wore that. He clearly didnt.

and whether we can tell with any degree of certainty what Tensing was wearing.

Perhaps, but the evidence for what he wasn't wearing is far more conclusive.

The evidence I am considering is the grainy pictures with mostly off angle view of watches, the letters, the claims, the ads,

So, you are saying that you looked at the photo I posted above and that you see a Rolex 6098? Or any Rolex? Because I suspect that will put you in a very small minority, Most, I suspect, will see a watch that looks compellingly like an A409 and wonder why you don’t...

You don't think it odd, that Rolex, a company with one of the most aggressive advertising departments in the world, would miss the opportunity to place a Rolex on the summit of Everest in 1953? You think that the director of Rolex at the time would concede there was no Rolex there? You think that Hunt, Hillary or Tenzing, all retained by Rolex, wouldn't point out that there was one there if there was?

the 'admission' etc.

What admission?

The only thing I am discounting are the vehement assertions made on what I consider is thin circumstantial evidence for the claim that there was no Rolex between the pair on the summit.

There you go with the dysphemism. Vehement? really?

As for the thin circumstantial evidence, you are making a claim, prove it - where's Hillary's 1953 Rolex? Tenzing's? We know he wasn't wearing a gold Datejust which is the usual suspect. What was he wearing and where did he get it. Why do dozens of pictures of him not show a Rolex and why don't Rolex have or claim to have a Summit Rolex from either of them? Slagging off someone else's efforts is easy. Now you have a claim. prove it.

BTW, I am sure you know where the picture is from.

Yes, thanks, precisely. I actually stated where, earlier in this thread; a thread you seem oddly vague about given the claims you are making. Not only do I know where, I know the precise number in the RGS collection of 1953 photographs and, thanks for reminding me, I need to get in touch and give them some money as I promised to if I used it. When I do primary research I do it properly.